Pages

Friday, April 29, 2016

The origin of the Bulgars and their homeland are still subjects of research generating many hypothesis and violent disputes. Bulgars, also called Bulgarians, were one of the three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians (the other two were Thracians and Slavs). They were mentioned for the first time in 354 AD by Anonymous Roman Chronograph as people living north of the Caucasus mountain and west of the Volga River. Headed by their chieftan Vund, Bulgars invaded Europe with the Huns about 370 AD,[0] and retreating with the Huns about 460 AD they resettled in the area north and east of the Sea of Azov.[1][2][3]

The Huns

About A.D. 370 a nomadic people called Huns invaded Eastern Europe. Coming from the East they quickly built an enormous empire in central Europe which reached its apex under the leadership of Attila (444-453 A.D.). Attila's sudden death followed by internal power struggle among his sons who were defeated at the battle of Nedao (still unidentified Pannonian river) at 455 A.D. put an end to the Hunnic empire. Some time later, as we learn from Jordanes, groups of Huns returned to their "inner" territory on the river Dnieper (Ukraine) where they reorganized on a smaller scale.[4] The Huns continued to be mentioned frequently in the 6th century under different tribal names as Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs, Bulgars, Sabirs and others.

The Huns and their tempestuous onrush over Europe is a story that has often been told. But whence they come and where they went are lost in mystery. Some say they were the Xiongnu, the race that was the terror of China, a hypothesis first proposed by the French sinologist J. Deguignes in 1748; but the Goths, who knew them best, thought otherwise. They told of the wicked sorceresses that king Filimer the Goth banished from his Scythian kingdom, who mingled on their wanderings with the evil spirits of the desert; and from that wild union were born the Huns. We will try to peer into the mysteries that hang over the Steppes to see if we can discover who were these Huns and Bulgars whose final incoming changed so lastingly and profoundly the history of Europe. At the end of this article we will see that both the Gothic legend and the ingenious hypotheses of Deguignes are actually true. The Huns and their awful ancestry have always been the boast of every bellicose nation; Attila is proudly called cousin, if not grandfather by them all; of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars' is best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valley of the Balkans, diluted by time and pastoral Slavs.[5]

The Huns - a second look

Roman historians Themistius (317-390), Claudian (370-404), and later Procopius (500-560) called the Huns Massagetae.[43] . The Huns were called Massagetae also by Ambrose (340-397), Ausonius (310-394), Synesius (373–414), Zacharias Rhetor (465-535), Belisarius (500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus (6th century) and others. However some historians mentioned Huns and Massagetae as distinct and different people who were cooperating during their raids, for example St Jerome tells us about the Great Hun raid of 395-6 into Armenia and Syria that " swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter".[44]Maenchen-Helfen also noted in his monography that despite the fact that Romans called the Huns Massagetae, the Huns and not the Massagetae, attacked the Alans, who threw themselves upon the Goths.[45] According to Pulleyblank European Huns comprised two groups of tribes with different ethnic affinities and the ruling group that bore the name Hun was directly connected with the Xiongnu.[46] But why Massagetae? There were no Massagetae in the 4th century AD. Let's see if we can find out who were they.Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya(1980, 23) and Edgar Knobloch (2001, 15 ) identify Massagetae with the Great Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi -> Ta-Yue-ti (Great Lunar Race) -> Ta-Gweti -> Massa-Getae. Dahiya wrote about the Massagetae and Thyssagetae : "These Guti people had two divisions, the Ta-Yue-Che and Siao-Yue-Che, exactly corresponding to the Massagetae and Thyssagetae of Herodotus ... " (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, who are known as the Lesser Getae, correspond with the Xiao Yuezhi, meaning Lesser Yuezhi.[47]. James P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair also supported this identification and wrote in their book : " Da (Greater) Yuezhi or in the earlier pronunciation d'ad-ngiwat-tieg, has been seen to equate with the Massagetae who occupied the oases and steppelands of West Central Asia in the time of Herodotus; here Massa renders an Iranian word for "Great," hence "Great Getae."... ". [48][49][50][51]

Artificial cranial deformation is a valuable cultural artifact for tracing the Huns and Bulgars back in time. According to Otto Maenchen-Helfen the artificially deformed skulls in proto-Bulgarian graves cannot be seperated from those in the graves of the Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians of the post-Attilanic graves in the South Russian steppes.[56] The Huns and proto-Bulgarians practiced a pronounce form of artificial cranial deformation at very high rate[57] and its circular type can be used to trace the route that the Huns took from north China to the Central Asian steppes and subsequently to the southern Russian steppes. Circular modification appeared for the first time in Central Asia in the last centuries BC as an ethnic attribute of the early Huns. The distribution of the skulls parallels the movement of the Huns.[58][59]

The spread of the custom of cranial deformation parallels the movement of the Huns

Artificially deformed skull - circular modification

The people who practiced annular artificial cranial deformation in Central Asia were Yuezhi/Kushans.[60][61][62][63] The migration of the Yuezhi started from North China during 2BC, it is well documented[64] and their movement parallels the distribution of the artificially deformed skulls. According to Maenchen-Helfen some of their groups migrated far to the west and were present in the steppes north of the Caucasus and on the shores of the Black Sea as early as 1st century BC.[65]

The spread of the custom of cranial deformation from Central Asia to Europe occurred in 6 phases and the distribution of the skulls parallels the movement of the Huns. Modern taxonomic analysis of the artificially deformed crania from 5th–6th Century AD (Hun-Germanic Period) found in Northeastern Hungary showed that none of them have any Mongoloid features and all the skulls belong to the Europid "great race" but further identification was impossible.[66]

The Huns, Bulgars and part of the Yuezhi share some common burial practices as the narrow burial pits, pits with a niche and the northern orientation of the burials. The results of the research on the origin of Bulgars lead to one particular region in Middle Asia - the lower and middle reaches of the Syr Darya. After the second century AD the Sarmatian culture on the lower reaches of the Volga underwent significant changes. New features uncharacteristic for the previous period appeared: artificial deformation of the skulls, narrow burial pits and pits with a niche, cut into one of the walls. These features are also found in later Bulgar necropoles.[67]

And last but not least: the recurve bow, the weapon that gave military advantage of the Huns over the Romans, was brought to Bactria by Yuezhi around 130 BC.[70]

Genetic research of Bulgars

Although many scholars had posited that the Bulgars were Turkic tribes of Central Asia, modern genetic research points to an affiliation with European and western Eurasian populations.[71] The phylogenetic analysis of ancient DNA samples shows that mtDNA haplogroups can be classified as European and Western Eurasian and suggest a Western Eurasian matrilineal origin for proto-Bulgarians as well as a genetic similarity between proto- and modern Bulgarians.[72] The Y-Chromosome genetic tests suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible.[73]

Genetic research: Tarim Basin - Bulgaria

Haplogroup I-M170

The origins of Tocharians and Tocharian related Yuezhi is controversial topic. Nevertheless, certain facts emerge. Usually they are assumed to have spoken Tocharian languages, but Tocharian is first attested in the 8th c. AD, or about 3 thousand years after the earliest appearance of Caucasoids in the region of Tarim Basin and Xinjiang, North China. Positing linguistic continuity is not an appropriate default position when direct evidence is absent. There is evidence that Caucasoid population in Tarim Basin were already mixed with Mongoloids as early as the early Bronze Age (at least in their mtDNA).[74] This reduces our confidence that they spoke an Indo-European language. An attempt to discover the origin of the Tocharians was made by a careful sorting of Y-chromosome lineages in the present-day Uyghur population of Xinjiang that is assumed to have absorbed the pre-Turkic inhabitants of the region. By removing Eurasian lineages that are likely to be associated with the Xiongnu, Mongols, Uyghur, and non-Tocharian sources (such as Iranians, or various Silk Road outliers), the phylogeographic analysis leaves three candidate haplogroups : J2-M172, R1a1a-M17, R1b-M343 (and its main R-M269 clade).[75] About 80% of the total genetic variation in modern Bulgarians falls within haplogroups J-M172, R-M17 and R-M269, E-M35, I-

Haplogroup E-M35

M170.[76] Because the haplogroups E-M35 and I-M170 are indigenous for the Balkan Peninsula
prior to the arrival of the Bulgars, this leads to the conclusion that there is an isomorphic correspondence between the haplogroups that can be associated with Tocharian related Yuezhi and the haplogroups that can be associated with the proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars). The conclusion correlates with the historical data that modern Bulgarians have three ethnic ancestors - Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians.

According to Hemphill and Mallory (2004) there were two Europoid physical types in the Tarim basin, the second type share closest affinities with Eastern Mediterranean populations. The same type is attested also in Bactria.[77]

The Yuezhi

Yuezhi in Dunhuang/China

The Yuezhi were recorded by the Chinese during the period of Warring States (495-221 B. C.) as nomadic people living in the the lands of the Western Region,specifically around Dunhuang and Guazhou. The Yuezhi had occupied Dunhuang district and became very strong nation in the Northwest China. Han Shu further records: " The Great Yuezhi was a nomadic horde. They moved about following their cattle, and had the same customs as those of the Xiongnu. As their soldiers numbered more than hundred thousand, they were strong and despised the Xiongnu. In the past, they lived in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian [Mountain](south of Hexi Corridor)" The Yuezhi was so powerful that the Xiongnu monarch Touman even sent his eldest son Modu as a hostage to the Yuezhi.The Yuezhi often attacked their neighbour the Wusun to acquire slaves and pasture lands. Wusun originally lived together with the Yuezhi in the region between Dunhuang and Qilian Mountain. The Yuezhi attacked the Wusun, killed their monarch Nandoumi and took his territory. The son of Nandoumi, Kunmo fled to the Xiongnu and was brought up by the Xiongnu monarch.

Migrations of the Yuezhi

Gradually the Xiongnu grew stronger and war broke out between them and the Yuezhi. There were at least four wars between the Yuezhi and Xiongnu according to the Chinese accounts. The first war broke out during the reign of the Xiongnu monarch Touman (who died in 209 B.C) who suddenly attacked the Yuezhi. The Yuezhi wanted to kill Modu, the son of Touman kept as a hostage to them, but Modu stole a good horse from them and managed to escape to his country. It appears that the Xiongnu did not defeat the Yuezhi in this first war. The second war took place in the 7th year of Modu era (203 B.C.). From this war, a large area of the territory originally belonging to the Yuezhi was seized by the Xiongnu and the hegemony of the Yuezhi started to shake. The third war probably was at 176 BC (or shortly before that) and the Yuezhi were badly defeated. The forth war was during the the period of Xiongnu monarch Laoshang (174 BC-166 BC) and was a disaster for the Yuezhi, their king was killed and a drinking cup was made out of his skull. Probably around 165 BC the majority of the Yuezhi migrated from the Tarim basin westward to Fergana. They finally settled in Transoxiana and Bactria.[78][79]

Bulgars and Yuezhi

It is hard to say if the Yuezhi (Yue-Chi) should be included in any of the recognized divisions of Turanian tribes such as Turks or Huns. Nothing whatever is known of their original language. Judging by the physical type represented on the Kushan's coins the Yue-Chi type is Turkish rather than Mongol or Ugro-Finnic. Some authorities think that the name Turushka or Turukha sometimes applied to them by Indian writers is another evidence of the connexion with the Turks. But the national existence and name of the Turks seem to date from the 5th century A.D., so that it is an anachronism to speak of the Yue-Chi as a division of them. The Yue-Chi and Turks, however, may both represent parallel developments of similar or even originally identical tribes. Some authors consider that the Yue-Chi are the same as the Getae and that the original form of the name was Ytit or Get, which is also supposed to appear in the Indian Jat.[80]

The clothes of the Yuezhi depicted on Bactrian Embroidery[68] are almost identical to the traditional Bulgarian costumes made nowadays.[69]

According to Hyun Jin Kim the nomadic Yuezhi possessed political institutions that closely resemble the Xiongnu and later Hunnic models. The Chinese refer to the five xihou or Lords of the Yuezhi who rule the five tribes of their imperial confederation. According to Pulleyblank the Yuezhi were Indo-Europeans and they spoke a Tocharian type language.[81] The title xihou corresponds in the pronunciation to what would later become the Turkic title yubgu. This originally Yuezhi royal title appears on the coins of their rulers as IAPGU/yavuga[82] and it came to the Xiongnu from the Yuezhi.[83] Among the Turks, the title yabgu gained a new lease of life. In the Turkish inscriptions of Mongolia, it refers to a noble ranking immediately after the qagan.[84] Kuyan/kayan was a "common Uechji" symbol for a terrestrial embodiment for the Moon and Milky Way.[85]

Language of Bulgars

Pritsak in his notable study "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan" (1982)[86] analyzed the 33 survived Hunnic personal names and concluded that the language of the Bulgars was Hunnic language:

1. Danube-Bulgarian was a Hunnic language (page 444)
2. Danube-Bulgarian had the suffix /mA/, with the same meaning as the Middle Turkic suffix /mAtOmeljan / 'the greatest among' (page 433)
3. In the Hunno-Bulgarian languages /r/ within a consonantic cluster tends to disappear (page 435)
4. In Hunno-Bulgarian there was also a tendency toward the develop ment of di > ti > ći (page 436)
5. In the Hunno-Bulgarian there was vocalic metathesis bli- < *bil (page 443)
6. There was initially a g- in the Hunno-Bulgarian languages (page 449)
7. One of the typical features of the Hunno-Bulgarian linguistic group is a cluster in the word initial position. (page 460)
8. Hunnic (language) shared rhotacism with Mongolian, Old Bulgarian, and Chuvash. (page 470)

According to Pritsak the language was between Turkic and Mongolian, probably closer to Turkic.

According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC.[87] The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families:[88]Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there.[89] It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic.[90] The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure."

Assuming that the connection Yuezhi->Hunno-Bulgars was substantiated enough we can try to find explanation in the preserved data about the language of Yuezhi/Kushans and see if we can find some correspondence. Some scholars have explained the words connecting the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans as coming from the Turkic languages, thus concluding that the language of the Kushans was from the Türkic language branch. this theory is inadequate. In the Zhoushu 周書, ch. 50, it is recorded that: “The ancestors [of the Türks] came from the state of Suo 索.”34 It has been suggested that “Suo索” [sheak] is a transcription of “Sacae.” In other words, it may be possible that the ancestors of the Türks originally were kin of the Sacae. If this is true, it would not be difficult to understand why some words and titles connected with the Yuezhi 月氏 or the Kushans can be explaned by the Türkic languages. In the Rājataraṅgiṇī (I, 170) there is a reference to the fact that the Türkic ruler in Gandhāra claimed his ancestor was Kaniṣka, and maybe this is not merely boasting. Other scholars have judged that the language of the Kushans was the Iranian language. This theory is also inadequate, for the following reasons. First, they were a branch of the Sacae, a tribal union composed of at least four tribes, i.e., Asii, Gasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli. Of these there were some tribes who spoke the Iranian language, but also some who spoke Indo-European languages other than the Iranian language, e.g., the Tochari. Next, the tribes that spoke Tokharian were in close contact with the tribes that spoke the Iranian language, and the words connected to them that can be explained with Iranian possibly originally were Tokharian.[91]

Yury Zuev included the Yuezhi (Uechji) among the tribes of early Turks. He wrote that " in the Northern Caucasus they spoke East - Iranian language, and in the Kangju they spoke in Türkic."[92] His sketches about early Türkic tribes and state type confederations showed that "ideological views coincide in many respects and have a common foundation, which ascends to the last centuries BCE. Such foundation was the pantheon of the ancient confederations of Uechji (Yuezhi) and Kangars that left a trace in the ideological complexes of Ashtak Türks, Oguzes, Kypchaks, Az-kishes, Kimeks, Kangly, etc. Certain features of it still are in the folklore of the modern Türkic peoples. The tradition of the ideological continuity is permeating the history of these peoples from extreme antiquity until the new time."[93] Probably one of the most striking customs was the custom of the population to completely shave their heads. "The seven-tribe Uechji -"Tochars” were “White-headed” i.e. with completely shaven heads. "Bold-headness" was equivalent to Moon-headness."[94] Remember that the word Yuezhi is a Chinese exonym, formed from the characters yuè (月) "moon" and shì (氏) "clan" - hence they shaved their heads to resemble the Moon. We are not surprised to discover the same custom among the rulers of Bulgarian Dulo clan : "These five princes ruled the kingdom over the other side of the Danube for 515 years with shaven heads and after that came to this side of the Danube Asparuh knyaz and until now (rules)."[95]

The Little Yuezhi

The Little Yuezhi remained in North China and were included into Xiongnu confederation under the name Chieh people (AY: Jie people).[95A] Chinese chronicles documented them as one of the 19 tribes of Xiongnu.[96] Obviously their number wasn't small at all, as it is usually assumed, because we are told that between 184 AD and 221 AD there was a serious revolt of the Little Yuezhi in Gansu and the Chinese couldn't suppress it for almost 40 years.[97] At the beginning of 4th century under the pressure of Rouran Khaganate the Little Yuezhi started migration toward Kazakhstan and Bactria under the name War-Huns.[98] In 349 AD there was a massacre of Chieh people in North China, Maenchen-Helfen points out that 200 000 of them were slain. Probably we can consider that as the final date of their migration from North China/Tarim basin toward Kazakhstan and Bactria. The Jie/Chieh who remained in north China became known as Buluoji Bulgars.[99]

Kutrigurs Huns

Archer riding on reverse

Kutrigurs from the Byzantine sources can be identified with Kidar Bulgars from Armenian sources [100] whom in turn David Lang identified with Kidarites.[101] Kidarites appeared in Kazakhstan and Bactria in 4th century and were branch of the Little Yuezhi,[102] they were also called Red Huns[103] and were displayed on Sogdian coins as archers riding on the reverse.[104] The same type military tactic is attested among Bulgars tribes. Some of Little Yuezhi inherited the Kushan Empire and were called little Kushan.[105][106] Given the historical background of the Little Yuezhi (one of the Xiongnu tribes) it follows that Kutrigurs belonged to the Hunnic group with which Bulgars entered Europe.[107][108][109] The Chinese name of Kidarites is Jidoulo.[110]

Dulo clan (House of Dulo)

Dulo clan symbol

The house of Dulo (also known as Dulo clan) was the ruling dynasty of early Bulgars. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin of Dulo clan and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure: ""According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun."[111] Many scholars agree that the dynasty has Hunnic origin, the first two names in the Nominalia of Bulgarian khans are actually Attila and his third son Ernak.[112][113][114][115] According to Steven Runciman, given all the historical circumstances and striking resemblance to the names Irnik and Ernak it would be unnecessary hypercritical not to trace the Bulgarian royal dynasty to Attila.[116] According to one hypothesis the name Dulo is distorted form of the name of Attila.[117]Omeljan Pritsak connects the name Dulo with the name of the Xiongnu ruling dynasty Tu-ko (EMC d'uo'klo) by suggesting that the name Vihtun from the Nominalia of Bulgarian khans is Xiongnu emperor Modun.[118]

The Huns - third look

Maenchen-Helfen in his famous monograph "The world of the Huns"[119] wrote that we know virtually nothing about the Indo-European languages spoken on the west-north borders of China. All we know of the language of the Huns are names. The tribal names appear to be of Turkish origin. The personal names fall into 3 general categories:
1) Turkish
2) Iranian
3) of unknown origin ( we don't count here apparently Germanic names whose origin is obvious) Examples of such names (concerning the Bulgar branch of the Huns) are :

Careful consideration of the above information shows that there is correspondence between the possible language of the Yuezhi and the possible language of the European Huns. Unfortunately we have to compare one unknown language to another unknown language - a quite formidable task. Anyway certain facts emerge - both languages exhibit features from Turkic and Iranian languages. We shouldn't forget that according to Pritsak many names appear to be Mongolian. The idea that Bulgars/Yuezhi tribes were dragged into Europe by a small Xiongnu fragment migrating to West has a long history behind. Pulleyblank, despite the fact that he concluded for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, assumed it as a plausible idea.[120]It is natural to assume that Yuezhi had a lot of Mongolian borrowings into their language from the very beginning ( the Tarim basin population had Mongoloid admixture from the early Bronze age). Recent studies show that the populations of the Tarim Basin used many different languages and writing systems, 17 languages in 24 different scripts are documented and among them are Old Turkic, Mongolian and Persian.[121] According to some researchers in modern Bulgarian language there are many words of Tocharian origin.[122]

The Gothic legend

At the end of the 4th century the name "Huns and Tochars" (Faunos-Ficarios) surfaces for the last time in the Gothic legend, rooted in annalistic traditions, about an origin of the western Huns: " Filimer, Gothic king and son of Gandaric the Great... learned that among his people are witches, whom he called "Haliarunna" - "diabolic sorcery" in the Gothic language. They were expelled on his orders, and sentenced to range in the steppes, far from the Gothic camp. The forest people Fauns - Fikars ("Huns and Tochars"), upon seeing the witches wandering in the desert, mated with them, and produced these barbarous people - Huns". And in silvestres homines, the "wood people" of the "General history" we see Greek ακατζιροι, Latin Akatziri, Huns - Turkic Agach-eri and Yiysh-teem ("wood people") of the Iranian and Türkic authors. If that so, then according to this version, the Türkic-speaking Huns - Agacheri must be viewed as a western branch of "Huns and Tochars" of the Jetisu.[123]

Conclusions

Absence of information about historical migration of "Xiongnu-Huns" to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns participated other tribes, and first of all Yuezhi-Massagetae. Utigur Bulgars were a tribe of the Great Yuezhi/Massagetae while the Hunnic group with which Bulgar tribes entered Europe were group of tribes of the Little Yuezhi. Kutrigurs belonged to the Hunnic group.

Brief history of Bulgars

Year 680: Bulgars defeated 50 000-strong Roman army supported by navy; the same Roman army defeated Arabs the previous year. Short footage with Bulgars mounted archers riding on reverse at the battle of Ongal. The First Bulgarian Empire was established.

According to Procopius, there was a nation of Huns living to the east of the Sea of Azov and north of the Caucasus, the king of these Huns had two sons, Kutigur and Utigur. The king referred by Procopius is most probably Ernak, the third son of Attila. After the death of the king, the two sons divided the people into two tribes. Analyzing the chronicles of the antique historians Vasil Zlatarski concludes that the name Bulgar was used for both tribes, but in 6th century the tribal names were preferred by the Eastern Roman Empire due to the different policy it had toward these two tribes.[124] In the middle of 6th century the Emperor Justinian, being attacked by the Kutrigurs Bulgars under their leader Chinialus, bribed their relatives the Utigurs Bulgars led by Sandilch to attacked the Kutrigurs in the rear. The resulting internecine war between the two Bulgars tribes weakened them and made them vulnerable to the Avar attack shortly after that.[125] By 568CE some Kutrigurs groups came under the control of the Pannonian Avars (Varchonites) who were migrating to Pannonia and was also known as Avars. The eastern Bulgar groups along the northern coasts of the Black sea, the Utigurs, were conquered by the Western Turkic Kaghanate (who were violently opposed to the Pannonian Avars).[126] Due to civil war the Western Turks retreated back into Asia no later than 583 CE according to Zlatarski.

Kubrat's Utigurs and Onogurs Bulgars defeated the Avars in alliance with Byzantium and reunited the Utigurs and Kutrigurs into a single Crimean Bulgar confederation in Patria Onoguria renamed as "Old Great Bulgaria" After Kubrat's death in 665AD, his empire was divided[127] when his appointed heir Batbayan submitted to the Khazars of Kubrat's second son Kotrag who settled Batbayan's army at the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers where they founded a Khanate known as Volga Bulgaria.[128]

Other sons of Kubrat carried the Utigur name to the Danube and Pannonia Secunda by April 677. Some submitted to a restored Avar Kaghan, while others rebelled moving south to the Pelagonian plain under the leadership of Tervel's Uncle, Kuber in alliance with Khan Asparukh's Utigurs[129] who successfully occupied the southern banks of the Danube following the Battle of Ongal. Kuber's Bulgars displaced some of the populations that had already settled in the region of Macedonia, and intermingled with the populations that remained. Following the Battle of Ongal, Asparukh settled a portion of the Utigur Bulgars in Moesia, to establish the state which would become modern Bulgaria. In the 8th century, the Kuber Bulgars merged with Asparuh's Bulgars who had by the late 7th century already taken both sides of the Danube River.

6. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, (2013, Cambridge University Press), Hyun Jin Kim, page 57: "After a period of chaos following Attila's death, dualism again reasserted itself in the succession of Dengitzik and Ernak (west and east respectively). The successor to the Hunnic Empire in the east, or rather probably the coninuation, also featured two wings, the Kutrigurs(west) and the Utigurs(east), ruled presumably by Ernak's descendants."

7. Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, Romilly James, page 45 : " The Bulgarians seem to have been in origin Huns, who may well have formed part, and survived as a rump, of the hordes of Attila in the fifth century. ... the so called Onogur Bulgarians are found in large numbers somewhere between the Kuban and the Volga rivers..."

8. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, Hyun Jin Kim, (2013, Cambridge University Press), page 256: " Thus in our sources the names 'Kutrigur', 'Bulgar' and 'Hun' are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group."

9. Early Mediaeval identity of the Bulgarians, Cafer Saatchi, page 3 : " The early Byzantine texts use the names of Huns, Bulgarians, Kutrigurs and Utrigurs as interchangeable terms. There the Bulgarians are represented as identical, they are a part of Huns or at least have something common with them. The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach."

11. SOME REMARKS ON THE CHINESE "BULGAR", 2004, SANPING CHEN: page 8 :" In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns. At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. "

12. History of the Later Roman Empire, J.B. Bury: " The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formidable people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for the Danubian provinces. As his policy on the Danube was to use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids, so his policy in Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don, on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their friendship by yearly gifts."

15. A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman (Book I The children of the Huns), G. Bell & Sons, London 1930, page 5: '' On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars."

20. The World of the Huns, O. Maenchen-Helfen, page 378 : " In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language."

21. The Hunno-Bulgarian Language, 2008, Antoaneta Granberg, Göteborg University, page 6: " The Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other "barbarian" languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic. The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure."

22. The Empire of the Steppes, Rene Grousset, page 79: " Other Hun clans survived north of the Black Sea in two hordes : the Kutrigur Huns, who led a nomadic life northwest of the of Azov and the Utigur or Utrigur Huns, whose haunts were by the mouth of the Don."

31. Armies of the Dark Ages, Ian Heath, ( 1979), page 53: " The Onogurs appeared after the disintegration of the Hunnic empire,...The Onogur tribes toghether with the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns, ....Once independent they adopted the name Bulgar..."

32. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, 2013, Cambridge University Press, Hyun Jin Kim, page 57, page 138, page 140-141, page 254 : " That the Utigurs and Kutrigurs formed the two main wings of the same steppe confederacy is proved by the foundation legend told by Procopius regarding the ethnogenesis of the two tribal groupings. He states that before the formation of both entities power in the steppe was concentrated in the hands of a single ruler ( presumably he is referring here to Ernak, son of Attila ), who then divided the power/empire between his two sons called Utigur and Kutrigur "

33. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 4, Edward Gibbon, page 537: " And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kutrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion"

34. The World of the Huns, Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. (1973), Chapter IX. Language: 6. Turkish names : Studies in Their History and Culture. University of California Press. p. 412

38. The Early Medieval Balkans, John Van Antwerp Fine, The University of Michigan Press (2000), page 66: " Meanwhile in the Steppes and the region around the sea of Azov dwelled the Onogur Bulgars. They were seminomadic,ethnically mixed people under a Bulgar chief. According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure. In 635 the Onogur chief Kovrat led a revolt against the Avars which succeeded in driving them from his land and putting an end to Avar suzerainty over the Onogurs"

40. Runciman, Book I, THE CHILDREN OF THE HUNS (1930), page 4: "Attila was proudly called cousin, if not grandfather, by them all. Of all these claims, it seems that the Bulgars’ is the best justified; the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs.", for identification Ernach and Irnik see Appendix III, page 35: "There then followed the Khan Sevar, till 739; but of him we know nothing, save that, like his predecessors, he was of the family of Dulo. In him this great house, the House of Attila, died out."

41. The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, 2013, Cambridge University Press, Hyun Jin Kim, page 140 :" The same is likely to have been the case among the Utigurs and Kutrigurs who under Attilid rule had even more justification for claiming the imperial mantle of the Huns of Europe."

45. The World of the Huns, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, page 4: "But considering that Themistius, Claudian, and later Procopius called the Huns Massagetae,..." p. 6

46. THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), page 37: "... there is almost certainly a lineal connection between the Northern Xiongnu who moved westward out of contact with the Chinese in the second century and the Huns who later appeared in Eastern Europe. Apart from the ruling group that bore the name Hun, however, the European Huns undoubtedly included other tribes with different ethnic affinities...", page 49 : " (1) that for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, (2) that there might be validity in the suggestion of Louis Ligeti that the Xiongnu language was related to Ket and other now extinct Yeniseian languages of Siberia, (3) that the Xiongnu language had bequeathed a number of important culture words to the later Turkic and Mongolian steppe empires, including Turkish tängri, Mongolian tenggeri ‘heaven’ and titles such as tarqan and tegin and kaghan"

62. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Denis Sinor, page 172: "A striking resemblance may also be noted in the deformed heads of the early Yueh-chih and Hepthalite kings on their coinage",

68. Yuezhi on Bactrian Embroidery from Textiles Found at Noyon uul, Mongolia Sergey A. Yatsenko Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, page 41, paragraph 2 : " The basic color gamma of the depictions is a combination of red/rose and white, which is characteristic for the Bactrian Yuezhi. Furthermore, there is a definite symmetry of these two basic colors. Thus, if an individual has a red caftan, then his shoes are also red but he has white trousers and a white belt, and, on the other hand, if he has a white caftan and shoes, the trousers and belt are red."

77. Hemphill, Brian E.; Mallory, J.P. (2004), "Horse-mounted invaders from the Russo-Kazakh steppe or agricultural colonists from Western Central Asia? A craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang", American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125, pp. 199ff. :

"This study confirms the assertion of Han [1998] that the occupants of Alwighul and Krorän are not derived from proto-European steppe populations, but share closest affinities with Eastern Mediterranean populations. Further, the results demonstrate that such Eastern Mediterraneans may also be found at the urban centers of the Oxus civilization located in the north Bactrian oasis to the west. Affinities are especially close between Krorän, the latest of the Xinjiang samples, and Sapalli, the earliest of the Bactrian samples, while Alwighul and later samples from Bactria exhibit more distant phenetic affinities. This pattern may reflect a possible major shift in interregional contacts in Central Asia in the early centuries of the second millennium BCE.", http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10354/abstract

83. Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Turk and Khazaro-Iranian Interaction, Peter B. Golden, page 17, footnote 89, Zuev, Early Turks, p.31 : "This title is first of all an Uechji title, or, in the opinion of the eminent scientist [F. Hirth, 1899, p. 48-50], it is a “true Tocharian” title. "

84. ENCYCLOPÆDIA IRANICA, JABḠUYA : "Although yabḡu is best known as a Turkish title of nobility, it was in use many centuries before the Turks appear in the historical record. ... Among the Turks, the title yabḡu gained a new lease of life."

99. Multicultural China in the Early Middle Ages, Sanping Chen, page 83: " The Huns and Bulgars: The Chinese Chapter", p. 90: "To summarize, the Buluoji, or the Bulgars of China according to Boodberg, appear to be a group that consisted of the remnants of the Xiongnu confederation that were not absorbed by the succeeding Xianbei conglomerate, with conspicuous Europoid admixture. Their cultural and linguistic affinity seems at least partially Altaic."

104. History of Civilizations of Central Asia, р. 120: "...the presence of Kidarites in Sogdiana is provided by early Sogdian coins with the image of an archer on the reverse and the word kydr (Kidara) in the obverse legend."

106. THE KIDARITE KINGDOM IN CENTRAL ASIA, E. V. Zeimal, стр. 132: „The Pei-shih (Chapters 7, 13) mentions that the Kidarites, whom it refers to as the Ta Yüeh-chih (Lesser Yüeh-chih), have money made of gold and silver. This information is confirmed by the evidence of their coins. The first comprehensive attempt to categorize and interpret Kidarite coins was undertaken by Cunningham.“

107. History of the Later Roman Empire, J. B. Bury, CHAPTER XX, § 2. The Gepids and Lombards; Kotrigurs and Utigurs, „The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs – the descendants of Attila's Huns – who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia.“

111. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press(2000), p. 66: "According to their traditions their ruling family, known as the house of Dulo, was descended from Attila the Hun. Though the scholars have advanced many theories, the origin and meaning of the name Dulo remain obscure."

115. The Tale of the Prophet Isaiah: The Destiny and Meanings of an Apocryphal Text, Ivan Biliarsky, р. 255: "Among historians, there is almost unanimity they were Attila, the ruler of the Huns, and his son Ernach."

116. A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Steven Runciman, Appendix III, р. 280: "Under these circumstances, especially considering the remarkable similarity of the names, it is surely unnecessarily hypercritical to refuse to identify Irnik with Ernach, and not to trace the Bulgar royal line from Attila."

119. The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, University of California Press, 1973,

120. THE PEOPLES OF THE STEPPE FRONTIER IN EARLY CHINESE SOURCES, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, University of British Columbia, (1999), page 37: "... there is almost certainly a lineal connection between the Northern Xiongnu who moved westward out of contact with the Chinese in the second century and the Huns who later appeared in Eastern Europe. Apart from the ruling group that bore the name Hun, however, the European Huns undoubtedly included other tribes with different ethnic affinities...", page 49 : " (1) that for various reasons it was very unlikely that the Xiongnu language was Turkic or Mongolian or any form of Altaic, (2) that there might be validity in the suggestion of Louis Ligeti that the Xiongnu language was related to Ket and other now extinct Yeniseian languages of Siberia, (3) that the Xiongnu language had bequeathed a number of important culture words to the later Turkic and Mongolian steppe empires, including Turkish tängri, Mongolian tenggeri ‘heaven’ and titles such as tarqan and tegin and kaghan"